We have been running a mud for 2 years. This is our first mud to actually implement. We still have most of the staff that helped us start the mud. Here is the problem, they expect to be told /asked their opinion of every change and design the implementors choose to implement into the game.

Now they each have their own defined role within the mud.
Ie. Questmaster, Roleplay, Webmaster, and so on. Also they are builders, and we give them pretty much free reign and explicit trust to do their jobs. They have been here so long they have access to shell to reboot the mud if needed.

I would like to know if other adminastrators of muds give their staff the same freedoms. Am I wrong to want to be able to code changes into the mud without asking their permissions first?

I forgot to mention that there was one point that we (the imps) could not make changes no matter how beneficial to the mud, without having to explain and defend the smallest detail.

Actually, this doesn't seem entirely out of line, in the case of major code changes. It does seem, though, as though it's impeding you to some extent. They may feel the same way - code changes can have impact on quests, on the world balance, any number of things.

I'd suggest setting up a bulletin board or mailing list that your staff has access to. If you use it to post changes , they have a chance to give you feedback that may prove useful, as well as allowing them to let you know when a change will have a negative impact on their work.

MUDs function better when the staff are working together and contributing to each other's work - often in such cases, the whole can end up being greater than the sum of the parts.

This is a copy of what I posted to TMC. I posted there first because I wanted to be sure Sarolite saw it.

There are many different approaches to group management and the biggest challenge is knowing your executive staff or "team mates" and how they will react, their predictability. If you've fostered a feeling of ownership and that their input and trust given has been truly valued, removing it without discussion or warning would feel like a knife in the back to them. There is no easy fix to your dilemma because the "trust" factor between you and a "volunteer" staff has been violated, so now you have decisions to make. You can either learn from it and acquire a new staff OR have a heart to heart with your current group and explain your actions as well as set up a truly structured hierarchy or plan so it never happens again.

If I were you, I would choose the second option because you obviously have a staff that loves your world and calls it home. That's a precious thing and you should try and keep it if you can.

Some advice to world managers:

Never allow new code without approval, read privilege access is sufficient. If you grant restart privilege, it must be clear new code must be approved before implementation. Coders code, builders build. (I can feel the builders and coders squirm at that comment )

You want to manage a team that can be trusted, care about your world, see and share your vision of the future AND talk among each other. Everyone has ideas, everyone debates, but YOU must have the final yes or no vote. You have to accede to group demands often if majority feels important or they'll feel useless. Never blind-side them, they are always in the barrel to mortals for "WHY" questions about changes just as you are.

Phew, I'm too long winded but this is an important topic all could learn from. I close with a final note to Sarolite though. Umm, from your comments I expect you have quit and I would offer that's a silly response. You've invested a piece of you into that world, your time, your ideas, your soul so-to-speak. You think it's broken, FIX it! That's why you have your hard-earned position!

I forgot to mention that there was one point that we (the imps) could not make changes no matter how beneficial to the mud, without having to explain and defend the smallest detail.

Since you have added content which you forgot to mention, let me respond to that. (I won't bother including the things I didn't mention, which are numerous, because I stated those points on the discussion on MudConnector.)

Your statement makes it sound like you were explaining and defending your changes. When in fact, you were hardly even notifying us of them! (Not a direct quote, but one of the implementors said this of another "He notified immortals about changes sometimes, not 100% of the time, but sometimes.") I can provide a direct copy and paste quote from my logs if you want to dispute that.

Let us further define explaining the smallest details as well. I think that having enough information to explain things and answer questions is not a bad thing. I don't think you need to tell us details of code, such as percentages or skills or how saves work. However, I think it's not inappropriate or too time-consuming to let us know things that people are going to ask us, being that we were visible to mortals more often than you were visible to immortals. (For example, "is the relationship timer counting in days or in weeks?" to which I could only answer "I have no idea, you'll have to ask an imp.")